[R&F] Sneak Peak 9/01

Status
Not open for further replies.
BREAKING NEWS: Georgians not happy with their representation in a video game. Replaced with Alabama.
But probably not the tribe.
 
Again, how many civs are the devs planning to have in total?

8 + an alt-leader for R&F. They haven't explicitly said the grand total after everything though. Ed Beach off-handedly said something about 40 civs, but that's probably an approximation.
 
Maybe the Ottomans won't come in Rise and Fall, but they will be added eventually, I am sure of that.
 
That medieval shield + sword and lion gave me a little spark of hope for my greatest wish - Kingdom of Bohemia. Then I remembered that Czechs used generic medieval sword, and this looks quite different. I also had no idea what could the last thing be :p

So, after looking at few replies... Georgia? A good pick! We've never had a Caucasian Civ in any Civ game before, and Tamar of Georgia is a great leader pick.
 
Last edited:
I was in a pretty crappy mood this morning. Now I've got a big grin on my face, and I'm not even such a fan of the Tamar meme. Thanks for that, Firaxis.
 
Maybe the Ottomans won't come in Rise and Fall, but they will be added eventually, I am sure of that.

True... but people these days have a lack of patience, so be prepared for pitchforks and misogynistic flame wars.
 
Georgia of Tamar just seems really obscure to me. What about the Celts? Incas? Normans? Sioux? Assyrians? Babylonians? I hope we still get one of these as a new civ.
If we only added civilizations in order of how iconic they are, it would be utterly pointless to bother speculating about the game until the second expansion pack. We'd know the first ~30 civs added without a doubt and we'd still have a pretty good grasp of the five or so beyond that. That's part of what made this expansion pack so dull for me to start out with; Korea, the Netherlands, and Mongolia are all essentially just checking off boxes while the Cree and especially Georgia are something new. If we'd started out with one of them (or if one of the first three emphasized the new mechanics more even) it'd have been a lot more hype-inducing for me.

I mean yes there's obviously something to be said for getting your priorities in order, but to be honest the Incas are the only one you list I'd call a top priority. Babylonia is pretty solid, Assyria is nice to have, honestly could take or leave the others.
 
I've never been a fan of the "They must include all the civs I learned in school from a bored and secretly drunk and 'phoning it in' teacher before including anything obscure" attitude.
 
This is basically civfanatics fan service. I don't mean to degenerate Tamar (who I think will be an interesting addition) or Georgia (which is a lovely country), but this would not have happened without this forums insistence.
Civfanatic's meme could have simply brought it to Firaxis' attention and they decided it was mechanically a good fit for the expansion. I'd wait to see how their abilities work before thinking it purely fanservice.
 
If we only added civilizations in order of how iconic they are, it would be utterly pointless to bother speculating about the game until the second expansion pack. We'd know the first ~30 civs added without a doubt and we'd still have a pretty good grasp of the five or so beyond that. That's part of what made this expansion pack so dull for me to start out with; Korea, the Netherlands, and Mongolia are all essentially just checking off boxes while the Cree and especially Georgia are something new. If we'd started out with one of them (or if one of the first three emphasized the new mechanics more even) it'd have been a lot more hype-inducing for me.

I mean yes there's obviously something to be said for getting your priorities in order, but to be honest the Incas are the only one you list I'd call a top priority. Babylonia is pretty solid, Assyria is nice to have, honestly could take or leave the others.

I feel like this every time a new Civ game is announced.

For some reason some people are under the impression Sid Meier's Civilization is like a Lifetime Achievement Award for historical cultures or something. It gets people very exercised.
 
I feel like this every time a new Civ game is announced.

For some reason some people are under the impression Sid Meier's Civilization is like a Lifetime Achievement Award for historical cultures or something. It gets people very exercised.

Exercised or exited? Or both?
 
I'll admit I was one of the skeptics regarding Tamar, and I'm trying to decide just how I feel. I have zero issues with a female leader, and I do enjoy a surprise here or there - which this is to me, even with all the forum build up.

However, the inclusion of Georgia makes me very concerned about the risk that the Ottomans/Turks will be passed over for R&F. Primarily from a location perspective. I do think that they are trying to spread representation in R&F around the globe.

Time to dive in and do a lot more research!
 
I'll admit I was one of the skeptics regarding Tamar, and I'm trying to decide just how I feel. I have zero issues with a female leader, and I do enjoy a surprise here or there - which this is to me, even with all the forum build up.

However, the inclusion of Georgia makes me very concerned about the risk that the Ottomans/Turks will be passed over for R&F. Primarily from a location perspective. I do think that they are trying to spread representation in R&F around the globe.

Time to dive in and do a lot more research!

I think they preclude the Byzantines (more than they already were given Antioch) more than the Ottomans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom